The tectonic shifts in this election are quite fascinating. Of course Clinton collapsed in the Rust Belt, but she also improved in some southern states.

She overperformed Obamas 2012 margins by 6.7 in Texas, 4.7 in Arizona, 2 in Georgia.

So will the Democrats try to get the Rust Belt back or just go straight for the not totally redneck southern states? Doing both at the same time seems difficult unless they find another extraordinary political talent like Obama, and it seems they won't find that.

The tectonic shifts in this election are quite fascinating. Of course Clinton collapsed in the Rust Belt, but she also improved in some southern states.

She overperformed Obamas 2012 margins by 6.7 in Texas, 4.7 in Arizona, 2 in Georgia.

So will the Democrats try to get the Rust Belt back or just go straight for the not totally redneck southern states? Doing both at the same time seems difficult unless they find another extraordinary political talent like Obama, and it seems they won't find that.

The democrats could forget about the rust belt and concentrate on TX, FL, AZ, NC.

I think you're not an American, so maybe some local color will help you interpret this. Donald Trump recently won our elections for president. (FYI in our country, president is not a largely ceremonial position but actually wields an enormous amount of power.) What's more, Trump won the elections despite making a number of openly racist statements, endorsing various extremist policies and having exposed a number of shocking lapses of personal character. Many people view Trump as one of the worst and most dangerous major party candidates for president in many decades.

What strikes some American observers as astonishing about Bernie's statement is that, in the wake of this stunning and devastating victory for Trump, Bernie (who is notionally a political ally of Hillary Clinton, the losing candidate in this week's election) would essentially endorse Trump's voters on their analysis of the main issues in language that parrots key lines of attack that Trump used against Clinton during the campaign.

Maybe if you were not a Yank and a bit more aware of politics in the rest of the world, you would understand that establishment stiffs the working guy is a pretty good summary of left wing thinking and socialism in general.

Its narrative that has belonged to the left for years and years, Trump might have appropriated it, but god forbid Bernie explain the election in terms relevant to his ideological grounding.

Indeed Jeremy Corbyn, Leader of the the Labour party, the opposition party in the UK (insert patronising waffle here) framed his explanation in very similar terms:

Quote:

His victory is an unmistakable rejection of a system that simply isn’t working for most people.

It has given us escalating inequality and falling living standards. In both the United States and Britain too many people have been left behind.

In the US and Britain many people have been left behind
In both countries, people feel angry that their communities have been abandoned, at the lack of investment and job opportunities for young people. It’s a message we’ve got to heed.

Why?

Because he is ideologically grounded in a similar left of centre way to Bernie and the language used is not some astonishing endorsement of Trump voters but simply the expected and normal way a left of centre perspective is going to frame Trumps victory.

God knows why you chose to be such a douche bag in your reply to me, internet gonna internet.

Maybe if you were not a Yank and a bit more aware of politics in the rest of the world, you would understand that establishment stiffs the working guy is a pretty good summary of left wing thinking and socialism in general.

Its narrative that has belonged to the left for years and years, Trump might have appropriated it, but god forbid Bernie explain the election in terms relevant to his ideological grounding.

Indeed Jeremy Corbyn, Leader of the the Labour party, the opposition party in the UK (insert patronising waffle here) framed his explanation in very similar terms:

Why?

Because he is ideologically grounded in a similar left of centre way to Bernie and the language used is not some astonishing endorsement of Trump voters but simply the expected and normal way a left of centre perspective is going to frame Trumps victory.

God knows why you chose to be such a douche bag in your reply to me, internet gonna internet.

I think you're missing the point I'm making. I'm not saying that Sanders' outreach to Trump is a betrayal of socialism. I'm saying that it's very hard for Hillary to run as a competent center-left establishment politician when the left is validating many of the attacks that the right wants to make on her.

What strikes some American observers as astonishing about Bernie's statement is that, in the wake of this stunning and devastating victory for Trump, Bernie (who is notionally a political ally of Hillary Clinton, the losing candidate in this week's election) would essentially endorse Trump's voters on their analysis of the main issues in language that parrots key lines of attack that Trump used against Clinton during the campaign.

Senator Sanders says he'd advise opposition to Trump's racism, sexism and xenophobia if they're expressed in government at all. But it's far from astonishing that Sanders would second Trump's economic protectionism, because that was Sanders' own whole (and practically sole) policy.

This, on the other hand, is pretty astonishing:--

Quote:

Donald Trump tapped into the anger of a declining middle class that is sick and tired ... of billionaires not paying any federal income taxes...

I think you're missing the point I'm making. I'm not saying that Sanders' outreach to Trump is a betrayal of socialism. I'm saying that it's very hard for Hillary to run as a competent center-left establishment politician when the left is validating many of the attacks that the right wants to make on her.

I think you are missing my point, his framing of the result and why it happened is a very typical framing of the result using typical lefty language appropriated by the Trump.

Bernie wants to explain the world in his terms relevant to his agenda, any relation to Hillary or effect on her, after her defeat, seems irrelevant and moot.

"Let me be very clear. In my view, Democrats will not retain the White House, will not regain the Senate, will not gain the House and will not be successful in dozens of governor’s races unless we run a campaign which generates excitement and momentum and which produces a huge voter turnout.

With all due respect, and I do not mean to insult anyone here, that will not happen with politics as usual. The same old, same old will not be successful.

The people of our country understand that — given the collapse of the American middle class and the grotesque level of income and wealth inequality we are experiencing — we do not need more establishment politics or establishment economics.

We need a political movement which is prepared to take on the billionaire class and create a government which represents all Americans, and not just corporate America and wealthy campaign donors. In other words, we need a movement which takes on the economic and political establishment, not one which is part of it."

wat on earth is this take? Like if you just plot a trend line between 2012 and 2016 and extend it to 2020, boom, there's your presumptive results of the next election, wow, Democrats are ****ed?

Demographic trends aren't really helping in the rust belt all that much and the sunbelt states aren't quite there yet to replace them if the WWC voters turn out in these numbers and Dems don't flip some of them. Need to wait for the voter files to know for sure, but it could just be a "figure out how to get female AA's to the polls at 2012 levels and you win" thing but for now we're just guessing.

The tectonic shifts in this election are quite fascinating. Of course Clinton collapsed in the Rust Belt, but she also improved in some southern states.

She overperformed Obamas 2012 margins by 6.7 in Texas, 4.7 in Arizona, 2 in Georgia.

So will the Democrats try to get the Rust Belt back or just go straight for the not totally redneck southern states? Doing both at the same time seems difficult unless they find another extraordinary political talent like Obama, and it seems they won't find that.

unless the democratic party can find some new leadership, i have a feeling the current regime will look upon those results positively and move forward trying to improve upon those numbers, which will only result in more lost elections. remember this?

So how do you explain to trump voters they went wildly in the wrong direction?

You can't explain it to them. They already made up their mind and will have to see for themselves. When they see the fiscal stability of the country collapse in the next 4-8 years, they will turn their backs on the Republicans, likely forever, and if Democrats can offer them real solutions with good civic minded leaders, they may come back.

But there's also the possibility that the coming years turn into another 1850s. If you don't know what the 1850s were like, check it out. We could be approaching the end of the 4th Party System.

That's kinda the same thing I'm making fun of though, looking at a good Democratic candidate crushing a couple elections compared to a bad Democratic candidate losing one narrowly and then going Chicken Little on our asses about the future of the Democratic Party.

Bernie was saying that insomuch as he and Trump can find common ground, he will work with him, and where they disagree, he will oppose him. Nothing more.

I think you missed the point that Senator Sanders claimed voters supported Mr Trump because they were fed up with, inter alia, billionaires not paying federal income tax. (Mr Trump is a billionaire and does not pay federal income tax, and brags that that makes him 'smart', in case the point needs underlining.)